Slashdot Mirror


Open Source at TiVo

CowboyRobot writes "ACM Queue has an article by TiVo co-founder Jim Barton, in which he explains how the company relies on open source technologies to create a closed-source product. A good lesson in how other companies can do the same. From the article: Careful management of our sources to abide by the terms of the GNU General Public License while protecting our proprietary developments is a small price to pay for this benefit."

32 of 226 comments (clear)

  1. Nice one Jim ... by craigmarshall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    >in which he explains how the company relies on open >source technologies to create a closed-source product ... but haven't Microsoft been doing this for years with the BSD source code? -- Craig

    1. Re:Nice one Jim ... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is a licence difference to consider here. GPL _requires_ the changes be made available in source form if the binary is distributed. BSD licences pretty much allows any company to take code, make proprietary changes to it and doesn't require distribution of those changes.

  2. To those who value their TiVos by citizen6350 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Quick, someone erase this article, BEFORE SCO SEES IT! (yes, its a joke)

    --
    "Sorry Im not more user-friendly."
  3. Good for Open Source? by Broadband · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I applaud Tivo for showing such appreciation for open source publically. As more and more companies hail the benifits of open source we might see even more developers do so, both lowering development costs and supporting more platforms. Both which are good for consumers. I myself am wedged so far into Microsoft territory that I cannot budge and every application we use for our industry is 100% Microsoft product requirements, whether it be windows or internet explorer. Hopefully continued publicity like this will improve the knowledge of alternative solutions.

    1. Re:Good for Open Source? by Broadband · · Score: 4, Informative

      Real Estate. The local MLS (Multiple Listing Service) is web based and for some god aweful reason they think it's a good idea to make the main navigation menu require IE 5.x or better. So if I ever want to see what is on the market or input a listing i need to do so with windows. On top of that our major contact management and scheduling program (www.topproduceronlin.com) requires Windows and Internet Explorer. Tried it on Linux and Apple platforms with no luck. I myself have developed some applications using a universal application like PHP, but I don't have the time to devote to development of solutions expecially when the most important tool I use I have no control over development besides bitching and complaining. I'd say 98% of people in the Real Estate industry know nothing aside from Windows, and those whom do are stuck because of that market share :(

    2. Re:Good for Open Source? by RealAlaskan · · Score: 3, Informative
      ... they think it's a good idea to make the main navigation menu require IE 5.x or better.

      Go to this site and install the Mozilla evangelism sidebar. Set your user agent string to something IE5ish. I'll bet that a recent Mozilla will work just fine. After all, the sign says ``IE5 or better''!

      I've done this on several IE-only sites, and had great results.

  4. Cool! by yotto · · Score: 3, Funny

    Maybe now they'll sue the people who wrote the code they used!

  5. Just how "careful" are they? by tambo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why do they have any incentive to be "careful" about their use of open-source? Why not just paste it into your proprietary, closed-source application? It's closed-source, so the chances that anyone finds out are slim to nil. Of course, you have to maintain that as the company line...

    Indeed, given the "business ethics? we've heard of 'em" nature of business these days, carefully shepherding one's source code to respect open-source rights is a losing value proposition. It takes resources - time, employees' attention, assignment of responsibility, meetings - while helping the company avoid a terrifically small chance of a lawsuit. Not the *right* thing to do, by any means, but probably the *customary* thing to do.

    I've been wondering quite a lot recently just how much respect closed-source developers typically afford to open-source code. I think the answer is a dirty little secret of the software biz.

    - David Stein

    --
    Computer over. Virus = very yes.
    1. Re:Just how "careful" are they? by tambo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Been in the business world a long time? ;)

      OK, serious response.

      First, general philosophy: History has show, consistently, that trusting corporations to do the right thing is a terrifically bad idea. Especially when it's more costly/troublesome than doing the wrong thing. Especially when the chances that they'll get caught, or punished, are insignificant. I needn't remind you that both Ken Lay and Martha Stewart still walk the streets as a reminder of this.

      Now, practical response: Whistleblowers? Are you kidding? There's no better way to ruin one's career, permanently and irrevocably, than turning whistleblower. It's one thing if you're Dr. Jeffrey Wigand taking on tobacco companies who are killing people. It's another thing altogether to ruin your career because your employer stole some open-source wonk's implementation of the cosine function.

      - David Stein

      --
      Computer over. Virus = very yes.
    2. Re:Just how "careful" are they? by tambo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      uradu is right on the money.

      It's a well-known trend, called the "frontier effect" or something similar. Usual course of business:

      1) One company creates a great product that comprises a brand-new market. Tons of R&D invested in development; research costs expected to be recouped once (their) market matures.

      2) Product hits and causes a stir. Huge sales and good times for frontier company.

      3) Entry of competitors, who produce similar (or better) products. They want a piece of the promising and profitable market, and they have an edge because they don't have to invest tons of R&D like the frontier corporation did.

      4) Market becomes overcrowded; new entries are indistinguishable from other products. Profits grow thin. Mainstream companies (Microsoft, Dell, Sony) weigh in with their versions, which grab market share by branding otherwise bland products.

      5) Frontier company is now struggling. Competitors moved in and devoured the market before the frontier company could recoup its huge R&D outlay. May fold or be acquired by a competitor.

      Look at the burgeoning technology-gadget markets: MP3 players, DVD players, PDAs... this trend has hit virtually every new technology that comes out.

      And this inevitable trend is why huge, bloated companies like Microsoft and Sony are so successful. Leave the risky, expensive, market-creation junk to foolhardy startups; weigh in with an entry once the market has proven itself. Fault MS for lots of things, but not this one - it's a wise strategy.

      - David Stein

      --
      Computer over. Virus = very yes.
  6. Copyleft is the difference by yerricde · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's true that Microsoft has been using non-copylefted open source code for years, but it's a greater accomplishment to segregate copylefted programs from proprietary programs.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  7. Ummm.. yea, everyone basically does this. by joeldg · · Score: 4, Informative

    Most companies, if they can, will use 100% open source to create totally closed-source solutions. The exceptions being the 100% microsoft shops, and those guy have all their profits eaten up by licenses, and "of course" they won't open source anything because the licenses restrict that they "can't". (I at one time worked as an ASP programmer and am happily a three-years now PHP programmer).

    The old point was, pay for a product, you pay for support; however, this is not true anymore (just try and call MS technical support without having a license you pay $1000 for).. But something like MySQL or PHP you can easily and quickly get help in any forum..

    But I digress.. the point is, most "smart" companies do this to keep costs down.

  8. always by yerricde · · Score: 5, Informative

    TiVo runs a modified version of Linux, which is protected by the GPL. Therefore, legally they have always been required to release their source.

    TiVo has distributed source code for the version of the Linux kernel included in the devices for as long as I can remember.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  9. Re:finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    I don't know why we let them get away with it all this time. For those who don't know, TiVo runs a modified version of Linux, which is protected by the GPL. Therefore, legally they have always been required to release their source. I guess the Slashdot crowd has always let them slide because they're jizzing their tighty whities over being able to watch 20 hours of Simpson's episodes in an afternoon. If we don't look out for our rights, no one will. Let's give 'em hell.

    What are you talking about?

  10. Re:Interesting quote by smartin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wonder if they'll ultimately be forced to release this code? Anyone know if the FSF has expressed an opinion on this?
    The FSF would be fools to force such an issue. Tivo is trying to work with the system as well and maintain their advantage over their competators. Jerking them around with the GPL would simply drive them and others away, thats not what we want, (right RMS?)

    --
    The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
  11. Re:Interesting quote by cperciva · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wonder if they'll ultimately be forced to release this code?

    They won't. One of the major principles of contract law is that if a contract is confusing, the confusion is resolved in favour of the party which did not write or choose the contract.

    Given that there's widespread disagreement about how far "GPL taint" extends, I'm pretty sure that any dispute here would be resolved in favour of the loadable modules not needing to be released.

  12. Re:Interesting quote by vondo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think it's more rigorous that "Linus says its OK." I think the license for the Linux kernel is officially GPL+"binary loadable modules are OK" so the kernel is not strictly under the GPL.

  13. Re:Interesting quote by OECD · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anyone know if the FSF has expressed an opinion on this?

    It's implied:

    This use is somewhat controversial. Advocates of the GPL and the Free Software Foundation interpret the GPL more stringently to disallow the use of proprietary modules. On the other hand, Linus Torvalds has stated that proprietary loadable modules are acceptable.
    (emphasis mine) That's from section 7 of the article, BTW.

    Wonder if they'll ultimately be forced to release this code?

    The GPLed source is here

    --
    One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
  14. Re:Readable version by Eric+Ass+Raymond · · Score: 5, Funny

    The fonts have been made small intentionally so that they'll save on bandwidth. Smaller fonts, less bits to move. It's been a common practise since the dotcom-bubble burst.

  15. Re:Interesting quote by JohnGrahamCumming · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you visit kernel.org you'll find the following license (the COPYING file) in /pub/linux/kernel.

    It is the GPL v2 with the following preamble:

    NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
    services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
    of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
    Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
    Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the linux
    kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.

    Linus Torvalds

    Doesn't seem to be anything other than user level code mentioned here, I guess we must assume that TiVo's modifications are user level.

    John.

  16. dish PVR 721 is GPL'd by bobsalt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    was jsut browsing though dishnetwork.com and saw that they offer the software(minus some prop. stuff) fro thier PVR model

    http://208.45.37.181/


  17. Re:Isn't TIVO bankrupt yet? by tmhsiao · · Score: 3, Interesting

    selling hardware that forces you to pay monthly fees for unnecessary service, and leaving you with a useless piece of garbage when they finally die

    I believe that TiVo has stated that if they do go out of business, they'll open the scheduling code so that users aren't left with useless pieces of garbage.

    --
    "My God...It's full of ads!" -Fry, about the Internet, Futurama
  18. Nits by crumley · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I love my TivO, and I thought that the article was pretty interesting, but I think I found a couple of small problems with it.
    Still-famous companies entered the GNU/Linux distribution business: Red Hat, VA Linux, Slackware, and others.
    As I recall, VA Linux never had their own Linux distribution. The started out selling hardware with Linux pre-installed, grew too quickly into other areas, and then crashed.
    Public domain soft-ware. This is software that has been made available for any use, with no restrictions. Many public domain packages are available, the most notable of which are the X Window System and BSD operating system.
    While I can see how a category such as Barton's "public domain software" could be useful, I think that he has named it very poorly. There is are crucial differences between software that is in public domain, which has no copyright, and BSD software. Public domain software can whith a few alterations be claimed by anyone as there own, while the copyright notices withing BSD software must not be removed. Of course, you can still do pretty much anything you want with BSD software, other than claim it as your own.
    --
    Preventive War is like committing suicide for fear of death. - Otto Von Bismarck
  19. there is a revolution comming. by 514x0r · · Score: 3, Insightful

    rather than sending jobs to india, lowering TCO is the way to go. as more companies--ie, ernie ball and now tivo--hail the benefits of open source the movement gains momenteum. eventually there will be a[nother] tech revolution......

    bring it on.

    --

    !(^((ri)|(mp))aa$)
  20. Re:Isn't TIVO bankrupt yet? by ncc74656 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Between their broken business model (selling hardware that forces you to pay monthly fees for unnecessary service, and leaving you with a useless piece of garbage when they finally die), and cable and satellite providers coming up with PVR hardware for free plus a monthly fee that's cheaper than TIVOs, I'm surprised they still exist.

    You are aware that there's a lifetime-service option, aren't you? I figure I got my money's worth out of that a year or so ago. If TiVo does go tango-uniform at some point, there are ways to keep the machine going without having it "phone home"...it's what TiVo owners in Canada and Australia are already doing.

    (Yes, IHBT. BFD.)

    --
    20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
  21. hmmm by SomeOtherGuy · · Score: 3, Funny

    My TivO -- One more machine I better make sure I write that $699.00 check to SCO for.

    Damn there goes next weeks lunch money.

    --
    (+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
    1. Re:hmmm by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 3, Informative

      actually, you only owe $32...SCO wants to charge $32 per device using embedded Linux. Surely you cannot count a TiVo Series2 system as an actual computer that requires a $699 IP license...

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
  22. Re:Isn't TIVO bankrupt yet? by NanoGator · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Between their broken business model (selling hardware that forces you to pay monthly fees for unnecessary service, and leaving you with a useless piece of garbage when they finally die), and cable and satellite providers coming up with PVR hardware for free plus a monthly fee that's cheaper than TIVOs, I'm surprised they still exist."

    They provide a kick ass service and you're surprised they still exist?

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  23. An interesting bit by Merk · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The TiVo Client Device is of necessity a closed system. As a service provider, we must prevent theft of service, so TiVo pays a great deal of attention to security of the device and resistance to hacking. Additionally, we sell the TCD at a price that provides a net margin to retailers, but no profit to us. Our profits come from providing service to each device over time, rather than from up-front costs.

    I think it is interesting that TiVo says they pay a lot of attention to the security of the device. That is true now, but with the first TiVo devices, getting a BASH prompt on the device turned out to be relatively easy. On boot a menu was available on the serial port with a hardcoded password. Using that password you could make all kinds of changes to the way the machine started up.

    He also metions talks about people getting around using the service. For years, the TiVo hacking community has known how to partially emulate the service by creating slice files and manually loading them onto the device. Recently hackers have figured out how to get an unmodified TiVo to use a service emulator. What's interesting about these development efforts is that they are not putting TiVo out of business.

    In the article, he makes no mention of the goodwill that TiVo has fostered with their users, even their hackers. Soon after TiVo was created, Richard Bullwinkle, their former "Chief Evangelist" started talking to people on bulletin boards. He was always very helpful and forthcoming, with only minor exceptions. He wouldn't talk about bypassing the TiVo service and he wouldn't talk about extracting video from the device. If you didn't talk about those things, he was perfectly happy to help out. Although TiVo was in business to make money through their service, they didn't screw over people who didn't want to subscribe. That's such a treat from a for-profit company. Imagine Microsoft, who also sells their set-top device at a loss, treating customers who don't want to use theirs for gaming without hostility.

    When Andrew Tridgell, (the same guy who created Samba and rsync) figured out how to create TiVo slice files so he could use the machine in Australia, it was probably this goodwill which made him choose to not release the info to the general public. Instead, it remained a closely guarded secret.

    Today, years later, the people who have followed in Tridge's footsteps, have refused to destroy TiVo's revenue stream. They have been very careful to try to make sure that only people who can't get TiVo service in their area are allowed to get around it.

    I think the goodwill that TiVo has is partly because of their general attitude towards their customers (and towards the hacker community) and partly the fact they used open-source software, and followed the license requirements. And, it is this, not their security measures, which have ensured that they've maintained a revenue stream -- despite using the "razor and razor blades" pricing model.

    I just wish Mr. Barton hadn't used a loaded term "service theft" to describe people who are using their TiVos without subscribing to the service. That term would be appropriate if people were downloading TiVo data without having a subscription, but not people who are simply choosing not to subscribe and are finding alternatives.

  24. Foolish to defend one's terms for sharing? by jbn-o · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The FSF would be fools to force such an issue. Tivo is trying to work with the system as well and maintain their advantage over their competators. Jerking them around with the GPL would simply drive them and others away, thats not what we want, (right RMS?)

    I'm not RMS, nor do I speak for him, the FSF, or any of the Linux kernel copyright holders. However, you appear to misunderstand a significant point about the development of the GNU Project and GNU/Linux in particular. There's nothing foolish about requiring compliance with the generous GNU General Public License, particularly nothing foolish about insisting that people cooperate in the commons the GNU GPL builds for us all. Nobody is more important than anyone else in this partnership (including Tivo). It is Tivo's job, not ours, to find a way to make money with GPL-covered programs if that is their desire.

    Perhaps you aren't aware that the GNU Project (and the continued development of the GNU/Linux operating system in particular) is not about achieving mere popularity at the expense of user's freedom to share and modify. From this essay:

    People justify adding non-free software in the name of the "popularity of Linux"--in effect, valuing popularity above freedom. Sometimes this is openly admitted. For instance, Wired Magazine says Robert McMillan, editor of Linux Magazine, "feels that the move toward open source software should be fueled by technical, rather than political, decisions." And Caldera's CEO openly urged users to drop the goal of freedom and work instead for the "popularity of Linux".

    Adding non-free software to the GNU/Linux system may increase the popularity, if by popularity we mean the number of people using some of GNU/Linux in combination with non-free software. But at the same time, it implicitly encourages the community to accept non-free software as a good thing, and forget the goal of freedom. It is no use driving faster if you can't stay on the road.

    And this essay:

    Proprietary software developers, seeking to deny the free competition an important advantage, will try to convince authors not to contribute libraries to the GPL-covered collection. For example, they may appeal to the ego, promising "more users for this library" if we let them use the code in proprietary software products. Popularity is tempting, and it is easy for a library developer to rationalize the idea that boosting the popularity of that one library is what the community needs above all.

    But we should not listen to these temptations, because we can achieve much more if we stand together. We free software developers should support one another. By releasing libraries that are limited to free software only, we can help each other's free software packages outdo the proprietary alternatives. The whole free software movement will have more popularity, because free software as a whole will stack up better against the competition.

  25. Tools vs. Applications by eyepeepackets · · Score: 3, Informative

    I said it in 1996, I'll say it again:

    "Keep the tools open and free: Make your money from developing applications."

    Mr. Butler and company have done well following this philosophy.

    Great article too.

    --
    Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
  26. Re:Interesting quote by topham · · Score: 3, Informative

    Tivo uses modules and signatures to protect their IP.

    binary modules are allowed; and by using a boot PROM which verifies the kernel has a valid signature they can be sure the kernel is approved by them. (Series 2 units with the latest kernels are extreemly difficult to hack in the same way as the first units.).

    Linus at some point specificly mentioned that doing a signature check was outside of the scope of the Linux kernel copyright and GPL license. So Tivo is on the up-and-up. Even if it upsets some people.